neoness [Medieval]

I read with interest the recent Margo Schulter 2-part article. I was
particularly fascinated with the "mirror" parallel between the
decreasing size of the perfect fifths going toward the later Western
meantone and the INCREASING size of the fifths (and thirds) as we
approach the "theoretical" direction of the "neo-Gothic" tunings, ending
up with 22t-ET, the Paul Erlich favorite...

My question has to do with the historical relationship of all this.
It's been a while since I "formally" studied a little Medieval music.
(I did have a graduate course with Gwynn McPeak at the University of
Michigan).

Do any of these "neo Gothic" tunings actually exist in history, or are
they present-day formulations to hear Medieval music a little
differently?? I guess the 17t-ET existed then... but the others??

Is it possible to consider them because it is not entirely known exactly
what was done?? Is it also because the thirds were variable, so it
COULD be possible that larger thirds were used in performance which
would lend themselves to one of the "neo" schemes??

I need a little bit more historical background. I'm floundering in the
"neoness" of it all...

Thank you!

___________ _____ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@c...> wrote:

> Do any of these "neo Gothic" tunings actually exist in history,

No. We have some ambiguous specifications from Marchetto and others
that semitones were sometimes narrowed from their Pythagorean ideal,
but there's no record of any tuning using larger-than-pure fifths in
this era.

> or are
> they present-day formulations to hear Medieval music a little
> differently??

Yes.

> I guess the 17t-ET existed then...

No, it didn't. Just a 17-tone Pythagorean chain.

> Is it also because the thirds were variable, so it
> COULD be possible that larger thirds were used in performance which
> would lend themselves to one of the "neo" schemes??

Right. Smaller melodic semitones would imply larger major thirds in
some places.